DOJ Falsely Claimed That Reporter James Rosen Was Involved In Bombings In Trying To Hide Fact It Spied On Him

from the whoa dept

Okay, here's one that's just crazy. A few weeks ago, lots of folks, including us, covered the story of how the Justice Department claimed to a court that reporter James Rosen was "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a leak of some State Department info concerning North Korea. He was none of the above. He was a reporter, but the DOJ was abusing its power in order to spy on his email and phone records, to try to find the source of the leak. Soon after that, it came out that the DOJ had been working overtime to make sure that the details of the surveillance of Rosen's communications was held under seal.

However, some are noticing an odd statement in the DOJ's filing to try to keep the case under seal. In what is likely a case of an overworked DOJ lawyer just cutting and pasting from a different attempt to keep some surveillance a secret, one of the motions to keep the search warrant sealed falsely claimed that Rosen was involved in a bombing, rather than just disclosing information on North Korea.

Somehow, if the DOJ can't even read its own motions to seal that carefully, you have to question if they really "considered alternatives less drastic than sealing," or if they were happy that throwing in key words like "responsible for the bombings" despite the case having nothing to do with bombings, only helped to keep it secret that they were spying on a the communications of a reporter, almost certainly in violation of the DOJ's own guidelines, and potentially in violation of the Constitution.

Reader Comments

Please tell me Rosen's lawyer(s) are going to be able to tear the DOJ to pieces over this, claiming someone was involved in a bombing in an attempt to justify spying on them to find a leak goes well past 'slander and defamation of character', to put it mildly.

OMG!! You really cracked the code here, Mike!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!! Someone in the DOJ may have made a mistake. Quick, write an article about it! Get those clicks! But whatever you do, never write about all your pirate friends who abuse the system and violate other people's rights on purpose. Never say anything bad about them, yet pretend like you really think piracy is not OK. Because, well, that's what an honest person would do. Ah, Mike. Is there any scumbag more scummy and slimy?

Re:

Isn't it a sign of those that have no real argument to just scream and shout in such a petty manner? All you do from post to post is point and cry, throwing the same lines out there with nothing to back it, to show for it. You're like a kid in the store throwing a tantrum, kicking your feet all about, streaming out a river of tears. At which point will you realize that everyone is just looking at you thinking of how pathetic you are?

But I guess you lost the argument in the first place so this is all you've got, to scream and shout, to kick your legs all about.

Re:

I still don't get there from here

Mike, maybe I'm missing some context here. I'm not seeing anything in this clipping that implicates Rosen for involvement in the bombings.

Even if it is a cut and paste error from the unrelated bombing case, it seems only to say that he had information they found necessary (and which they need to keep sealed) to "locate and prosecute" whoever the bombers may be.

That's still a ways off from claiming any involvement, don't you think? Or what connection am I missing?

Re:

Okay, your fixation and obsession over Mike, and/or your increasingly desperate attempts to get people to pay attention to you seem to be getting worse at a pretty quick rate lately, you really need to see a shrink, and soon.

Re: I still don't get there from here: You're missing the MIKE connection.

As the censored AC already pointed out, this is likely just a typo, and yet Mike RUNS with it.

The same Mike who just today wrote "How does that computer?" --And here he makes up the ridiculous notion of an "overworked DOJ lawyer"! Oh, yeah, lawyers are burning the midnight oil at DOJ. -- Most likely it's an unpaid intern lawyer wannabe.

Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.

Not on the same level, but meanwhile brazilian police is arresting reportes and protesters against bus price raises and bad quality of public transport, because they possess Vinegar (who people use to recover from tear gas) allegedly because it could be used to create "bombs". Like vinegar + baking soda bombs. They must be afraid of science fair volcanos. I just hope they never hear about american police officers "phones equal guns" logic.

Re:

this seems like a really good example of the kind of thing that can happen when law enforcement of any description get too powerful. the surveillance going on here, was for no apparent reason, other than the fact that he is/was a reporter and the DoJ wanted to find out his source. he has also been linked to a crime that he didn't have knowledge of, just because they can do so, mistakenly or not. anyone can be accused of any crime and evidence be 'manufactured' so that the person the DoJ or other agency want can be associated with the crime and the area where it happened. what can be done today just to make out a suspect is wanted, or an arrest is imminent or all evidence points to a particular person in this respect, is above frightening! i wonder how many poor fuckers have been stitched up by these methods, just to make an agency or person in that agency look 'good', or maybe to get 'funding'? it doesn't bear thinking about really.

Re: Re: I still don't get there from here: You're missing the MIKE connection.

"As the censored AC already pointed out, this is likely just a typo, and yet Mike RUNS with it. "

As the lying shill incorrectly lies: there is no censorship on this site, just community judgement and consequences for things said. The comment has not been removed, has not been removed by anyone running the site, and is still viewable with a single mouse click.

come on now

Re: Troll Count Up

Kind of like when we where dicussing the failings of SOPA and other crap bills, the troll count kept going higher and higher, so i figured "if they dont like what the site is saying there must be some truth in it, better check it out"

(wasnt AJ the one that kept saying, "dont talk about it because its already going to pass and nothing can be dont to stop it you filthy pirates...")

Re:

Re: I still don't get there from here

The DoJ is trying to seal their attempts to get a warrant to spy on someone. In one of their four paragraphs of "facts" in support of why they need the seal, they stated that they need it because nothing else will help them "locate and prosecute those responsible for the bombings."

While this is an obvious error, the implication is that their spying is related to this "locating and prosecuting", implying that the person they are spying on was involved somehow.

If they weren't suggesting he was involved, why would sealing the warrant be relevant?